A New Look at School Failure and School SuccessAuthor(s): William GlasserSource: The Phi Delta Kappan, Vol. 78, No. 8 (Apr., 1997), pp. 596-602Published by: Phi Delta Kappa InternationalStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20405873 .

Accessed: 09/04/2013 17:23

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

Phi Delta Kappa International is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The PhiDelta Kappan.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 136.167.59.142 on Tue, 9 Apr 2013 17:23:37 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

fSr^ ****..- -?"to

m "m?

596 PHI DELTA KAPPAN Illustration by Mario Noche

This content downloaded from 136.167.59.142 on Tue, 9 Apr 2013 17:23:37 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

A New Look at School

Failure and School Success

BY WILLIAM GLASSER, M.D.

The cause of both school failure and marriage failure is that almost all people believe in and practice stimulus/response

psychology, Dr. Glasser contends. He suggests a better alternative ? CHOICE THEORYSM ? to nurture the warm, supportive

human relationships that students need to succeed in school and

that couples need to succeed in marriage.

JOHN IS 14 years old. He is capable of doing good work in school. Yet he reads and writes poorly, has not learned to do more than simple cal

culations, hates any work having to do with school, and shows up more

to be with his friends than anything else. He failed the seventh grade last

year and is well on his way to failing it again. Essentially, John chooses

to do nothing in school that anyone would call educational. If any standards must

be met, his chances of graduation are nonexistent.

We know from our experience at the Schwab Middle School, which I will de

scribe shortly, that John also knows that giving up on school is a serious mis

take. The problem is he doesn't believe that the school he attends will give him

a chance to correct this mistake. And he is far from alone. There may be five

million students between the ages of 6 and 16 who come regularly to school but

are much the same as John. If they won't make the effort to become competent

readers, writers, and problem solvers, their chances of leading even minimally

satisfying lives are over before they reach age 17.

WILLIAM GLASSER, M.D., is the founder and president of the William Glasser Institute in

Chatsworth, Calif In 1996 he changed the name of the theory he has been teaching since 1979 from "control theory

" to CHOICE THEORY . He is currently writing a new book on the subject. All his

books are published by HarperCollins.

APRIL 1997

This content downloaded from 136.167.59.142 on Tue, 9 Apr 2013 17:23:37 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Janet is 43 years old. She has been

teaching math for 20 years and is one of the teachers who is struggling unsuccess

fully with John. She considers herself a

good teacher but admits that she does not

know how to reach John. She blames him, his home, his past teachers, and herself for this failure. All who know her con

sider her a warm, competent person. But for all her warmth, five years _

ago, after 15 years of mar

riage, Janet divorced. She is

doing an excellent job of car

ing for her three children, but, with only sporadic help from

their father, her life is no pic nic. If she and her husband had been able to stay togeth er happily, it is almost cer

tain that they and their chil

dren would be much better off than they are now.

Like many who divorce, Janet was aware that the mar

riage was in trouble long be fore the separation. But in the context of marriage as she knew it, she didn't know what to do. "I tried, but nothing I did seemed to help," she says. She is lonely and would like another marriage but, so far, hasn't been able to find any-

-

one she would consider marrying. There

may be more than a million men and wom en teaching school who, like Janet, seem

capable of relationships but are either divorced or unhappily married. No one doubts that marriage failure is a huge prob lem. It leads to even more human misery than school failure.

I bring up divorce in an article on re

ducing school failure because there is a

much closer connection between these two problems than almost anyone real izes. So close, in fact, that I believe the cause of both these problems may be the same. As soon as I wrote those words, I

began to fear that my readers would jump to the conclusion that I am blaming Janet for the failure of her marriage or for her

inability to reach John. Nothing could be further from the truth. The fact that she doesn't know something that is almost uni

versally unknown cannot be her fault. If you doubt that the problems of John

and Janet are similar, listen to what each of them has to say. John says, "I do so lit tle in school because no one cares for me,

no one listens to me, it's no fun, they try to make me do things I don't want to do, and they never try to find out what I want to do." Janet says, "My marriage failed because he didn't care enough for me, he never listened to me, each year it was less

fun, he never wanted to do what I want

ed, and he was always trying to make me

do what he wanted." These almost identi

To persuade a teacher

?ike Janet to give up what

she implicitly believes

to be correct is a

monumental task.

cal complaints have led John to "divorce"

school, and Janet, her husband. Are these Greek tragedies? Are all these

students and all these marriages doomed to failure no matter what we do? I con tend they are not. The cause of both school

failure and marriage failure is that almost no one, including Janet, knows how he or

she functions psychologically. Almost all

people believe in and practice an ancient, commonsense psychology called stimu

lus/response (SR) psychology. I am one

of the leaders of a small group of people who believe that SR is completely wrong headed and, when put into practice, is to

tally destructive to the warm, supportive human relationships that students need to

succeed in school and that couples need to succeed in marriage. The solution is to

give up SR theory and replace it with a new psychology: choice theory.

To persuade a teacher like Janet to give up what she implicitly believes to be cor

rect is a monumental task. For this reason

I have hit upon the idea of approaching her through her marriage failure as much

as through her failure to reach students like John. I think she will be more open to learning something that is so difficult to learn if she can use it in both her per sonal and her professional lives. From 20

years of experience teaching choice the

ory, I can also assure her that learning this

theory can do absolutely no harm. If John could go to a school where

_. choice theory was practiced, he

would start to work. That was con

clusively proved at the Schwab Middle School. To explain such a change in behavior, John would

say, "The teachers care about me,

listen to what I have to say, don't

try to make me do things I don't want to do, and ask me what I'd like to do once in a while. Be

sides, they make learning fun." If

Janet and her husband had prac ticed choice theory while they still cared for each other, it is like

ly that they would still be mar

ried. They would have said, "We

get along well because every day we make it a point to show each other we care. We listen to each

other, and when we have differ ences we talk them out without

blaming the other. We never let a

week go by without having fun -'

together, and we never try to

make the other do what he or she doesn't want to do."

Where school improvement is con

cerned, I can cite hard data to back up this contention. I also have written two books that explain in detail all that my staff and I try to do to implement choice theory in schools. The books are The Quality School and The Quality School Teacher.1 Where

marriage failure is concerned, I have no

hard data yet. But I have many positive responses from readers of my most recent

book, Staying Together,2 in which I apply choice theory to marriage.

The most difficult problems are human

relationship problems. Technical problems, such as landing a man on the moon, are

child's play compared to persuading all students like John to start working hard in school or helping all unhappily married

couples to improve their marriages. Dif ficult as they may be to solve, however,

relationship problems are surprisingly easy to understand. They are all some variation of "I don't like the way you treat me, and, even though it may destroy my life, your

598 PHI DELTA KAPPAN

This content downloaded from 136.167.59.142 on Tue, 9 Apr 2013 17:23:37 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

life, or both our lives, this is what I am

going to do about it."

READERS familiar with my work will have figured out by now that choice theory used to be called control theory because it teaches

that the only person whose behavior we can control is our own. I find choice the

ory to be a better and more positive-sound

ing name. Accepting that you can control

only your own behavior is the most diffi cult lesson that choice theory has to teach. It is so difficult that almost all people, even

when they are given the opportunity, re

fuse to learn it. This is because the whole thrust of SR theory is that we do not con trol our own behavior; rather, our behavior is a response to a stimulus from outside

ourselves. Thus we answer a phone in re

sponse to a ring. Choice theory states that we never an

swer a phone because it rings, and we never will. We answer a phone

? and do

anything else ? because it is the most

satisfying choice for us at the time. If we have something better to do, we let it ring. Choice theory states that the ring of the

phone is not a stimulus to do anything; it is merely information. In fact, all we can ever get from the outside world, which

means all we can give one another, is in

formation. But information, by itself, does not make us do anything. Janet can't make

her husband do anything. Nor can she make John do anything. All she can give them is information, but she, like all SR be

lievers, doesn't know this.

What she "knows" is that, if she is dis satisfied with someone, she should try to "stimulate" that person to change. And

she wastes a great deal of time and ener

gy trying to do this. When she discovers, as she almost always does, how hard it is to change another person, she begins to

blame the person, herself, or someone else

for the failure. And from blaming, it is a

very short step to punishing. No one takes this short step more frequently and more

thoroughly than husbands, wives, and teach ers. As they attempt to change their mates,

couples develop a whole repertoire of coer cive behaviors aimed at punishing the oth er for being so obstinate. When teachers

attempt to deal with students such as John,

punishment ?

masquerading as "logical

consequences" ?

rules the day in school.

Coercion in either of its two forms, re ward or punishment, is the core of SR the

ory. Punishments are by far the more com

mon, but both are destructive to relation

ships. The difference is that rewards are more subtly destructive and generally less offensive. Coercion ranges from the pas sive behaviors of sulking and withdraw

ing to the active behaviors of abuse and violence. The most common and, because

it is so common, the most destructive of coercive behaviors is criticizing

? and nag ging and complaining are not far behind.

Choice theory teaches that we are all driven by four psychological needs that are embedded in our genes: the need to

belong, the need for power, the need for

freedom, and the need for fun. We can no

more ignore these psychological needs than we can ignore the food and shelter

we must have if we are to satisfy the most obvious genetic need, the need for sur

vival.

Whenever we are able to satisfy one or

more of these needs, it feels very good. In

fact, the biological purpose of pleasure is to tell us that a need is being satisfied.

Pain, on the other hand, tells us that what we are doing is not satisfying a need that we very much want to satisfy. John suf

fers in school, and Janet suffers in mar

riage because neither is able to figure out how to satisfy these needs. If the pain of this failure continues, it is almost certain that in two years John will leave school,

and of course Janet has already left her

marriage. If we are to help Janet help John, she

needs to learn and to use the most impor tant of all the concepts from choice theory, the idea of the quality world. This small, very specific, personal world is the core of our lives because in it are the people, things, and beliefs that we have discov ered are most satisfying to our needs. Be

ginning at birth, as we find out what best satisfies our needs, we build this knowl

edge into the part of our memory that is our quality world and continue to build and adjust it throughout our lives. This

world is best thought of as a group of pic tures, stored in our brain, depicting with extreme precision the way we would like

things to be ? especially the way we want

to be treated. The most important pictures are of people, including ourselves, because it is almost impossible to satisfy our needs

without getting involved with other peo ple.

Good examples of people who are al most always in our quality worlds are our

parents and our children ?

and, if our mar

riages are happy, our husbands or wives.

These pictures are very specific. Wives and husbands want to hear certain words,

to be touched in certain ways, to go to cer

tain places, and to do specific activities

together. We also have special things in

-yvv .^s

' Wait. Don't tell me!

"

APRIL 1997 599

This content downloaded from 136.167.59.142 on Tue, 9 Apr 2013 17:23:37 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

our quality world. For example, the new

computer I am typing this article on is

very much the computer I wanted. I also have a strong picture of myself teaching choice theory, something I believe in so

strongly that I spend most of my life do

ing it. When we put people into our quality

worlds, it is because we care for them, and

they care for us. We see them as people with whom we can satisfy our needs. John

has long since taken pictures of Janet and of most other teachers

? as i

well as a picture of himself do

ing competent schoolwork ?

out of his quality world. As soon as he did this, neither Janet nor any other SR teacher could reach him. As much as

they coerce, they cannot make

him learn. This way of teach

ing is called "bossing." Bosses use coercion freely to try to

make the people they boss do

what they want.

To be effective with John, Janet must give up bossing and turn to "leading." Leaders nev

er coerce. We follow them be cause we believe that they have our best interests at heart. In

school, if he senses that Janet is now caring, listening, en

couraging, and laughing, John will begin to consider putting her into his quality world. Of '

course, John knows nothing about choice

theory or about the notion of a quality world. But he can be taught and, in a

Quality School, this is what we do. We have evidence to show that the more stu

dents know about why they are behaving as they do, the more effectively they will

behave.

Sometime before her divorce, Janet, her ex, or both of them took the other out of their quality worlds. When this happened, the marriage was over. If they had known

choice theory and known how important it is to try to preserve the picture of a

spouse in one's quality world, they could have made a greater effort than they did to care, listen, encourage, and laugh with each other. They certainly would have been aware of how destructive bossing is and would have tried their best to avoid this destructive behavior.

As I stated at the outset, I am not as

signing blame for the failure of Janet's

marriage. I am saying that, as soon as one

or the other or both partners became dis

satisfied, the only hope was to care, listen,

encourage, and laugh and to completely stop criticizing, nagging, and complain ing. Obviously, Janet and her ex-husband

would have been much more likely to

have done this if they had known that the

only behavior you can control is your own.

When Janet, as an SR teacher, teaches

successfully, she succeeds with students because her students have put her or the

When Janet punishes

John, she gives him

more reasons to keep

her and math out

of his quality world.

math she teaches (or both) into their qual ity worlds. If both she and the math are in their quality worlds, the students will be a joy to teach. She may also succeed with a student who does not particularly want to learn math, but who, like many stu

dents, is open to learning math if she gives him a little attention.

John, however, is hard core. He is more

than uninterested; he is disdainful, even

disruptive at times. To get him interested

will require a real show of interest on her

part. But Janet resents any suggestion that she should give John what he needs. Why should she? He's 14 years old. It's his job to show interest. She has a whole class room full of students, and she hasn't got the time to give him special attention. Be cause of this resentment, all she can think of is punishment.

When Janet punishes John, she gives him more reasons to keep her and math out of his quality world. Now he can blame

her; from his standpoint, his failure is no

longer his fault. Thus the low grades and threats of failure have exactly the oppo site effect from the one she intends. That is why she has been so puzzled by stu

dents like John for so many years. She did the "right thing," and, even though she can see John getting more and more turned

off, she doesn't know what else to do. She no more knows why she can't reach John than she knows why she and her husband found it harder and harder to reach each

-1 other when their marriage started to fail.

FROM THE beginning to the end of the 1994 95 school year, my wife Carleen and I worked to

introduce Quality School con

cepts into the Schwab Middle

School, a seventh- and eighth grade school that is part of the Cincinnati Public School Sys tem. (Carleen actually began training many staff members in choice theory during the second semester of the 1993-94 school

year.) This school of 600 reg

ularly attending students (750 enrolled) has at least 300 stu dents like John, who come to school almost every day. With the help of the principal, who

was named best principal in -' Ohio in 1996, and a very good

staff, we turned this school around.

By the end of the year, most of the reg

ularly attending students who were capa

ble of doing passable schoolwork were

doing it.3 Indeed, some of the work was much better than passable. None of the students like John were doing it when we

arrived. Discipline problems that had led to 1,500 suspensions in the previous year

slowly came under control and ceased to be a significant concern by the end of the school year.

By mid-February, after four months of

preparation, we were able to start a special

program in which we enrolled all the stu dents (170) who had failed at least one grade and who also regularly attended school.

Most had failed more than one grade, and

some, now close to 17 years of age, had failed four times. Teachers from the regu lar school staff volunteered for this program.

Our special program continued through summer school, by the end of which 147

600 PHI DELTA KAPPAN

This content downloaded from 136.167.59.142 on Tue, 9 Apr 2013 17:23:37 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

of these 170 students were promoted to

high school. The predicted number of stu dents who would go to high school from this group had been near zero. Getting these students out of the "on-age" classes

where they had been disruptive freed the

regular teachers to teach more effective

ly, and almost all the "on-age" students

began to learn. The "on-age" seventh-grad ers at Schwab had a 20% increase in their

math test scores, another positive outcome

of the program. We were able to achieve these results

because we taught almost all the teachers in the school enough choice theory to un

derstand how students need to be treated if they are to put us into their quality worlds.

Using these concepts, the teachers stopped almost all coercion

? an approach that was

radically different from the way most of these students had been treated since kin

dergarten. When we asked the students

why they were no longer disruptive and why they were beginning to work in school, over and over they said, "You care about

us." And sometimes they added, "And now

you give us choices and work that we like to do."

What did we do that they liked so much? With the district's permission, we threw out the regular curriculum and allowed the students to work at their own pace. We as

signed lessons that, when successfully com

pleted, proved that the students were ready for high school. The seven teachers in the

special program (called the Cambridge Program)

? spurred on by the challenge

that this was their school and that they could do anything they believed necessary

? worked day and night for almost two months to devise these lessons, in which the students had to demonstrate that they could read, write, solve problems, and learn the basics of social studies and science.

We told the students that they could not fail but that it was up to them to do the

work. We said that we would help them learn as much as we could, and teachers

from the "on-age" classes volunteered their free periods to help. Some of the students

began to help one another. The fear began to dissipate as the staff saw the students

begin to work. What we did was not so

difficult that any school staff, with the lead

ership of its principal, could not do it as well. Because we had so little time, Car leen and I were co-leaders with the prin cipal. A little extra money (about $20,000) from a state grant was also spent to equip

^ JB@?M

^m^

"Hi, Coach. I hear you* re looking for a center."

the room for the Cambridge Program with

furniture, carpeting, and computers, but it was not more than any school could raise if it could promise the results we achieved.

THESE Quality School ideas have also been put to work for sever

al years in Huntington Woods Ele

mentary School in Wyoming, Michigan. This nearly 300-student K-5

school is located in a small middle-class town and is the first school to be desig nated a Quality School. There were very few Johns in this school to begin with, so the task was much easier than at Schwab.

Nonetheless, the outcomes at Huntington Woods have been impressive.

All students are doing competent schoolwork, as measured by the Michigan

Education Assessment Program (MEAP). The percentages of Huntington Woods stu dents who score satisfactorily as measured

against a state standard are 88% in read

ing and 85% in math (compared to state

averages of 49% in reading and 60% in

math).

As measured by both themselves and their teachers, all students are doing some

quality work, and many are doing a great deal of quality work.

While there are occasional discipline incidents, there are no longer any disci

pline problems. The regular staff works very success

fully with all students without labeling them learning disabled or emotionally impaired.

Even more important than these meas

urable outcomes, the school is a source of

joy for students, teachers, and parents.

I emphasize that no extra money was

spent by the district to achieve these re sults. The school, however, did some fund

raising to pay for staff training.

I CITE Schwab and Huntington Woods because I have worked in one of these schools myself and have had a great deal of contact with the other. They

are both using the ideas in my books.

Huntington Woods has changed from an

SR-driven system, and Schwab has made a strong start toward doing so. Moreover,

Schwab's start has produced the results described above. And more than 200 oth er schools are now working with me in an

effort to become Quality Schools. So far only Huntington Woods has eval

uated itself and declared itself a Quality School. Even Schwab, as improved as it is, is far from being a Quality School. But, in terms of actual progress made from where

we found it, what Schwab has achieved is

proportionally greater than what Hunting

APRIL 1997 601

This content downloaded from 136.167.59.142 on Tue, 9 Apr 2013 17:23:37 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

ton Woods has achieved. While many schools have shown in

terest in what has been achieved at Hunt

ington Woods and at Schwab, very few of them have accepted the core idea: change the system from SR theory to choice the

ory. Indeed, there are many successful SR

schools around the country that are not

trying to change the fundamental system in which they operate, and I believe their success is based on two things.

First, for a school to be successful, the

principal is the key. When an SR school

succeeds, as many do, it is led by a prin cipal whose charisma has inspired the staff and students to work harder than they would

ordinarily work. This kind of success will

last only as long as the principal remains. I am not saying that some charismatic

principals do not embrace many of the ideas of the Quality School, or that the

principal doesn't have to lead the system ic change that choice theory makes pos sible. However, once the system has been

changed, it can sustain itself (with the prin cipal's support, of course, but without a

charismatic leader). Second, the SR schools that are work

ing well have strong parental support for

good education and few Johns among their students. Where such support is already present or can be created by hard-work

ing teachers and principals, schools have a very good chance of being successful without changing their core system. After

all, it is these schools that have tradition

ally made the SR system seem to work. In such schools, Janet would be a very successful teacher.

While Huntington Woods had the kind of support that would have made it a good school without changing the system, the staff wanted it to become a Quality School and set about changing the system from

the outset. With the backing of the super intendent, the staff members were given an empty building and the opportunity to

recruit new staff members, all of whom were anxious to learn the choice theory needed to change the system. The fact that

Huntington Woods has a charismatic lead er is certainly a plus, but it is her dedica tion to the ideas of choice theory that has led to the school's great success. With very

high test scores, no discipline problems, and no need for special programs, Hunt

ington Woods has gone far beyond what I believe the typical SR school could achieve. Many educators who have visit

ed the school have said that it is "a very different kind of school."4

Schwab today is also very different from the school it was. And what has been ac

complished at Schwab has been done with almost no active parental support. The larg est number of parents we could get to at

tend any meeting ? even when we served

food and told them to bring the whole fam

ily ? was 20, and some of them were par

ents of the few students who live in the middle-class neighborhood where the school is located. Almost all the Schwab students who are like John are bused in from low-income communities far from the school, a fact that makes parents' par

ticipation more difficult. At Schwab an effort was made to teach

all the teachers choice theory. Then Car leen and I reminded them continually to use the theory as they worked to improve the school. At Huntington Woods, not on

ly were the teachers and principal taught choice theory in much more depth than at

Schwab and over much more time than we had at Schwab, but all the students and

many parents were also involved in learn

ing this theory and beginning to use it in their lives.

Unfortunately, Janet has never taught in a school that uses choice theory. When she brings up her problems with John in the teachers' lounge, she is the beneficiary of a lot of SR advice: "Get tough!" "Show him right away who's boss." "Don't let him get away with anything." "Call his

mother, and demand she do something about his behavior." "Send him to the prin cipal." Similarly, like almost everyone whose

marriage is in trouble, Janet has been the

beneficiary of a lot of well-intended SR advice from family and friends ? some of which, unfortunately, she took.

Her other serious problem is that she works in an SR system that is perfectly willing to settle for educating only those students who want to learn. The system's credo says, "It's a tough world out there. If they don't make an effort, they have to

suffer the consequences." Since Janet is herself a successful product of such a sys tem, she supports it. In doing so, she be lieves it is right to give students low grades for failing to do what she asks them to do. She further believes it is right to refuse to

let them make up a low grade if they don't have a very good attitude

? and some

times even if they do. In her personal life, she and her hus

band had seen so much marriage failure

that, when they started to have trouble, it was easy for them to think of divorce as

almost inevitable. This is bad informa tion. It discourages both partners from do

ing the hard work necessary to learn what is needed to put their marriage back to

gether. Life is hard enough without the

continuing harangues of the doomsayers. In a world that uses choice theory, people

would be more optimistic. There has been no punishment in the

Huntington Woods School for years. There is no such thing as a low grade that can not be improved. Every student has ac cess to a teacher or another student if he or she needs personal attention. Some stu

dents will always do better than others, but, as the MEAP scores show, all can do well. This is a Quality system, with an em

phasis on continual improvement, and there is no settling for good enough.

Unfortunately for them, many Schwab students who experience success in school for the first time will fail in high school. The SR system in use there will kill them off educationally, just as certainly as if we

shot them with a gun. They didn't have

enough time with us and were too fragile when we sent them on. However, if by some miracle the high school pays atten

tion to what we did at Schwab, many will succeed. There was some central office

support for our efforts, and there is some

indication that this support will continue. The Huntington Woods students are

less fragile. They will have had a good enough start with choice theory so that,

given the much stronger psychological and financial support of their parents, they will

probably do well in middle school. In

deed, data from the first semester of 1995 96 confirm that they are doing very well.

It is my hope that educators, none of whom are immune to marriage failure, will see the value of choice theory in their per sonal lives. If this happens, there is no doubt in my mind that they will begin to use it

with their students.

1. William Glasser, The Quality School (New York:

HarperCollins, 1990); and idem, The Quality School

Teacher (New York: HarperCollins, 1994). 2. William Glasser, Staying Together (New York:

HarperCollins, 1995).

3. The school also had about four classes of special education students who were in a special program led by capable teachers and were learning as much as they were capable of learning. 4. See Dave Winans, "This School Has Everything,"

NEA Today, December 1995, pp. 4-5. IC

602 PHI DELTA KAPPAN

This content downloaded from 136.167.59.142 on Tue, 9 Apr 2013 17:23:37 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions